This thread is for showing interclade and intraclade output from Ken Nordtvedt's Generations6 methodology as "industrialized" to work with large numbers of haplotypes easily from the Haplotype_Data spreadsheets I maintain. They are posted at the L21, P312 and U106 Yahoo Groups files sections.

Notice the very small error range (4.9 to 4.2 ybp) for the U106 and P312's MRCA using Ken's Nested method. Essentially this is a refinement of the non-nested age estimate directly above if. So the best estimate for the most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 is 4.5 ypb (2500 BC.) This MRCA would be an R-L11* person but this is NOT the TMRCA for R-L11, essentially it does put a "bottom" on L11's TRMCA or at least the 5.2 to 3.8 ybp range does.

I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway.

The normal intraclade TMRCA's for U106 and P312 are 3.7 and 4.1. I'm still getting P312 as slightly older although most other people don't get that. I'm not sure why. In any case, we have a very nice "cap" on the ages of U106 and P312 now.

The coalescence ages for U106 and P312 are not estimates of the MRCA's themselves but average estimates of their early expansion times. That's not perfectly correct but that as about as close as I can get to trying to apply those numbers to something real. When I mean expansion times I should qualify that as the expansion times for the extant (surviving) lineages. P312 and U106's families may have been expanding quickly from their inception but many of those early lineages went extinct and it wasn't until the coalescence age timeframes the the extant lineages began their eventual domination, if that make sense.... I'm looking for better ways to interpret these results so please comment. Ken's graphic helps but to try to relate to real world applications properly is not clear to me yet.http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Nested%20Variances.pdf

Please double check my numbers and get your hands on the tools and data!

This thread is for showing interclade and intraclade output from Ken Nordtvedt's Generations6 methodology as "industrialized" to work with large numbers of haplotypes easily from the Haplotype_Data spreadsheets I maintain. They are posted at the L21, P312 and U106 Yahoo Groups files sections.

Notice the very small error range (4.9 to 4.2 ybp) for the U106 and P312's MRCA using Ken's Nested method. Essentially this is a refinement of the non-nested age estimate directly above if. So the best estimate for the most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 is 4.5 ypb (2500 BC.) This MRCA would be an R-L11* person but this is NOT the TMRCA for R-L11, essentially it does put a "bottom" on L11's TRMCA or at least the 5.2 to 3.8 ybp range does.

I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway.

The normal intraclade TMRCA's for U106 and P312 are 3.7 and 4.1. I'm still getting P312 as slightly older although most other people don't get that. I'm not sure why. In any case, we have a very nice "cap" on the ages of U106 and P312 now.

The coalescence ages for U106 and P312 are not estimates of the MRCA's themselves but average estimates of their early expansion times. That's not perfectly correct but that as about as close as I can get to trying to apply those numbers to something real. When I mean expansion times I should qualify that as the expansion times for the extant (surviving) lineages. P312 and U106's families may have been expanding quickly from their inception but many of those early lineages went extinct and it wasn't until the coalescence age timeframes the the extant lineages began their eventual domination, if that make sense.... I'm looking for better ways to interpret these results so please comment. Ken's graphic helps but to try to relate to real world applications properly is not clear to me yet.http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Nested%20Variances.pdf

Please double check my numbers and get your hands on the tools and data!

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically. Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method. Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade? If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one. I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe. It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.

....I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway....

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically. Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method. Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade? If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one. I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe. It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.

Yes, I have to agree. Ken said the value of the new method is going to be most valuable when two clades are roughly the same age anyway.

The only problem with geographic based calculations is there is a big "if" on whether each respective geography represents a clade. The more back and forth migration, etc. from one geography to the next you'll find diversity growing, but is not necessarily indicating age for the geography.

well I have to admit that the centre of the L11 dates keep coming in on the beaker phase. If that is true U106 was likely part of the same movement. I really cant see any reasoning for U106 to belong to a completely separate culture like Corded Ware (which has been shown to include R1a). The old theory of a Corded Ware origin for beaker seems to be well out of favour among archaeologists. L11* seems to just be a lineage without an SNP rather than ancestral. Perhaps one L11* lineage headed north and the U106 SNP occurred there. So the beaker theory has a lot going for it at the moment. The correlation with beakers in distribution was noted several years ago.

The real problem is that archaeologists are far from getting a real understanding of beaker origins and movement. Its much more likely that DNA will solve it than archaeology because the movement was so rapid that its very hard to track movements using normal dating techniques. If DNA does resolve the beaker origin issue then it will be an incredible achievement. So, L11 is descended from L51 in turn descended from L23 which seems to have come to SE Europe from Anatolia or thereabouts. Perhaps it entered Europe with the whole dairy pastoralist thing that has been detected crossing c. 5000BC. There are cultures around Bulgaria and east Romania that seem to be from Anatolia about that time. It seems likely if that was the case that these L23 folk would have been responsible for brining the whole pastoralist thing into contact with the steppes folk. Which way the language went is a matter of opinion. Somewhere in that mix (add in the metal skills in that general area too) a blend may have produced IE as we know it. I wouldnt like to speculate the details about what happened next but L11 does descend from L51 which is not much known in Asia Minor as far as I know. So L11 arose in Europe from some L51* group. As I understand it L51 negative for L11 is much more weighted to eastern Europe than L11 so it would make sense if an L51 group there made the leap west. Is there any sort of distribution map for L51xL11?

I read somewhere that some Iberian S116 could be upstream of Z196 (I think I read that) so perhaps the possibility of an origin there is not as dead as it looked at one time. I am not sure if that is correct and would welcome some comments on that.

I have thought for some time that the Beakers probably included some U106 in addition to some P312, though not necessarily in equal amounts. I think this is especially true in the case of the Rhenish Beakers. Nor have I ever found the model that proposes a strict distinction between P312 as Beakers and U06 as Corded Ware very convincing.

....I don't know if it is really fair to run an interclade of L11 and L23xL11 as L23xL11 is a paragroup, but we'll look at it anyway....

I don't think running L11's with L23's would be as helpful as only L23's divided geographically. Even though it is a paragroup, it can still be interpreted with the interclade method. Either way, it's an L23 mrca.

Are there enough L51's or L11's to divide geographically to get an interclade? If not, there should be enough European L23's to get one. I think this would provide a decent age of the first R1b's within Europe. It could be recalculated with non-Europeans added in order to see the time difference.

Yes, I have to agree. Ken said the value of the new method is going to be most valuable when two clades are roughly the same age anywaThe only problem with geographic based calculations is there is a big "if" on whether each respective geography represents a clade. The more back and forth migration, etc. from one geography to the next you'll find diversity growing, but is not necessarily indicating age for the geography.

Unfortunately, we don't have anything parallel to L51 or L11. Maybe this is a result of a bottleneck from the pre-copper and bronze ages. I agree though, geography is not an adequate substitute for an snp. However, there maybe something we can infer from comparing broad regions like east and west.

Its not great but given the normal strong biases towards the British Isles and western Europe in general, it is pretty striking how it is distributed east of France from Italy and the alps to SE Europe. The eastern part is usually very underrepresented so it suggests there is a concentration there.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312. That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche. It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106. If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche. it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late. If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up. Again, this could be down to U106 being later. If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312. That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche. It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106. If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche. it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late. If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up. Again, this could be down to U106 being later. If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312. That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche. It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106. If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche. it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late. If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up. Again, this could be down to U106 being later. If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.

One bit of evidence which suggests the presence of U106 in the Beakers is the Myres' data from Denmark. U106 (along with all other R1b subclades) reaches its highest concentration in northern Denmark, presumably north Jutland. This was an area where the Beakers settled. If U106 only arrived there with Corded Ware, it seems to me its highest density would be found elsewhere in Denmark.

I should make it clear that I am not equating the Beakers with U106, nor saying there was no U106 in Corded Ware. I believe both remain open questions. I just don't see any evidence which proves U106 was completely absent in the Beakers, and present solely in Corded Ware, and some evidence to the contrary.

Also we know the various P312 subclades did not follow the same migration patterns, but everyone assumes the U106 subclades migrated only as a single unit. Since virtually no study has been made of U106 by subclade, I believe this is an assumption which is completely lacking in support.

U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).

Maybe U106 was "beakerized" by contact with P312 Beaker Folk.I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312. That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche. It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106. If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche. it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late. If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up. Again, this could be down to U106 being later. If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.

East Continental Europe is everything east of Germany, Austria and Italy. The Nordic Countries include Finland and Denmark.

I do show variance for U106 all is younger than P312 all, but this may be an example of why it is so important to peel the onion back. Notice that East Europe has 1.24 for relative variance. That is on a base of P312 all so P312 all is 1.0. U152 is about 1.15. That may seem a little strange but what happens is that these variance calculations really represent "coalescence" ages. The best way I can describe that is an average time of early expansion. P312 all's coalescence is younger than U152's. Apparently the same thing happens in U106 and probably we are seeing the variance affected by the Anglo-Saxon population growth in England (and probably also in the Low Countries,) averaging the variance down a bit.

Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106. I think that is fairly analogous.

I think maybe some of you are moving U106 too far south and west far too early.

One thing of note in Mike's calculations is that U106 may be younger than P312. That could mean that it was forced to move away further to find its own niche. It is possible by Mikes calculations that P312, U152, Z196 and even L21 may be older than U106. If U106 really is about 4 or 500 years older than P312 it may have had to travel some distance to find a niche. it could match with the fact that the beaker phenomenon in northern Europe is now seen as relatively late. If the common idea that beaker people were looking for metal and trade control, it is interesting that the P312 groups seems to have had all the best areas sewn up. Again, this could be down to U106 being later. If they really only date from the age Mike gets for them then they cannot be connected to the Corded Ware culture as they would have come into existence when it was over. The date would fit better beaker groups relatively late thrust into the north to the east of the Rhine.

As I recall, the last estimates I heard had the oldest U106 in Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I don't think it was nearly as far south and west as it is today until the Germanic-speaking tribes began to encroach on Celtic territory in, if I recall correctly, the 3rd century BC. And that was just the beginning. It took time for the Germans to move into the Benelux region. That is why, even as late as Caesar's day, Celtic-speaking peoples, with leaders with Celtic names, like the Belgae, could be spoken of originating east of the Rhine. That's one reason why I don't think there was all that much U106 in Britain before the Migration Period. It was not right across the Channel in the Low Countries the way we think of the situation now.

So, honestly, I am not so sure U106 had much of a hand in the Beaker phenomenon.

I think it more likely that it partook of the Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware influences.

Yeah, I do not see why U106 could not be Nordic Bronze Age and Corded Ware. It apparently took the Baltic route, and I suspect it would be found in ancient remains once more are analyzed.

Mikes central date for U106 are too late for corded ware. The culture was over by that date. Both U106 and Corded Ware are indeed thought to be oldest in Poland. However the date for U106 Mike arrived at is about 1000 years later than the beginning of corded ware in Poland. In fact Mikes's central date for U106 is younger than even the very end of Corded Ware.

By the way its actually a curious fact that U106 and the TRB and Corded Ware cultures of the northern European Plane are all thought to have originated in Poland and spread west.

Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106. I think that is fairly analogous.

For some time I have argued that the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic may have given an inaccurate picture of U106. Althoug it is difficult to impossible to analyze U106 by subclade (and the administrators of the U106 project appear to want to keep it that way), it looks to me like L48 has a pretty strong argument for being a Germanic subclade. I wonder what U106 would look like with L48 removed. I also wonder how much of U106 in Scandinavia is L48. My suspicion is that most of it is.

I also think an origin for U106 in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe in no way establishes that they were restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age. They might well have expanded westerly along the Baltic, with some branching north into Scandinavia and others continuing west to the North Sea coast.

I also think P312 probably originated in eastern Europe as well, though not so far north as Poland.

I had the thought of some M269 subclades coming out of perhaps Ukraine, taking a northern route through Finland to Norway. From there by ship to the Isles, northern Islands, and southward to France. (Bronze Age and later)

Mikes central date for U106 are too late for corded ware. The culture was over by that date. Both U106 and Corded Ware are indeed thought to be oldest in Poland. However the date for U106 Mike arrived at is about 1000 years later than the beginning of corded ware in Poland. In fact Mikes's central date for U106 is younger than even the very end of Corded Ware.

By the way its actually a curious fact that U106 and the TRB and Corded Ware cultures of the northern European Plane are all thought to have originated in Poland and spread west.

I must have missed that, but I'm not sure I would be willing to say U106 couldn't be a part of Corded Ware based on a margin of a mere 1,000 years worth of STR variance one way or the other.

There is a margin of error for the start and end of Corded Ware (as with any culture) and, of course, a margin of error for haplogroup ages, as well.

I don't think the difference between the age estimates for P312 and U106 are all that significant.

Perhaps, the L21 guys should think of it this way... what L21 is to P312 is what L48 is to U106. I think that is fairly analogous.

For some time I have argued that the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic may have given an inaccurate picture of U106. Althoug it is difficult to impossible to analyze U106 by subclade (and the administrators of the U106 project appear to want to keep it that way), it looks to me like L48 has a pretty strong argument for being a Germanic subclade. I wonder what U106 would look like with L48 removed. I also wonder how much of U106 in Scandinavia is L48. My suspicion is that most of it is.

I also think an origin for U106 in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe in no way establishes that they were restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age. They might well have expanded westerly along the Baltic, with some branching north into Scandinavia and others continuing west to the North Sea coast.

I also think P312 probably originated in eastern Europe as well, though not so far north as Poland.

While an origin in Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe does not establish that U106 was restricted to Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Nordic Bronze Age, its current frequency cline would seem to indicate that was probably the case. It doesn't look like it has been nearly as far west as it is now since the Bronze Age, at least not to me.

I know we'll disagree on this, but I really don't think U106 was as far west then as it is now. It also seems to me pretty obvious that it has a connection to Germanic-speaking peoples, and we know from history and archaeology that they didn't start moving south and west until about the the 3rd century BC.

Ancient y-dna results could prove me wrong, but I think U106 was very small potatoes indeed (perhaps practically non-existent) among Celtic speakers.

... I don't think the difference between the age estimates for P312 and U106 are all that significant.

I'm not sure of alignment or non-alignment with Corded Ware, but I agree that P312 and U106 are roughly the same age. I'll concede to the "Busby blob" on this and say that the major, early subclades of R-L11 across Europe are roughly of the same timeframe. I can not see a "staged" approach among P312, U152, L21, Z196, U106, U198, L48 and R-L11 itself. They may have had different prongs, flanking and driving through Europe, but it was all about the same time.

In fact, if you go with Busby's analysis that these STR diversity differences are insignificant, then I think we should throw European R-L23* in with the R-L11 subclades.

... I know we'll disagree on this, but I really don't think U106 was as far west then as it is now. It also seems to me pretty obvious that it has a connection to Germanic-speaking peoples, and we know from history and archaeology that they didn't start moving south and west until about the the 3rd century BC...

I actually don't disagree, at least generally. I don't think there is much doubt that U106 did not have any significant impact on the Atlantic fringe early on, and even today has little on the true fringe.

The only thing that I may disagree on is that some U106 could have leaked as far as into Britain before the Anglo-Saxon era. It's definitely old enough and they were definitely right next door across the North Sea from a fairly early date. It just seems odds that some U106 wouldn't have leaked across to Britain and integrated in with the inhabitants. It still comes to a discussion of how many percentage points we are talking about and I don't have real reason to cite any particular numbers.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some of the passionate Celtic U106 folks really were Celtic for a long, long time.

U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).

We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.

P312 is also ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where there is no Beaker settlement. Does this prove that P312 couldn't have arrived there with the Beakers?

Finally I see no reason to assume that the Beakers on the Atlantic coastline necessarily had the exact same genetic composition as those from Holland and the Rhine.

U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, including places where little or no Beaker settlements were. Beaker presence in northern Denmark is not as strong as in other places, and it came there somewhat later. So, I wouldn't expect that it was brought there by U106 but probably by some other group.

Beaker's distribution is too far south and west too early to have that much of a U106 component, unless one assumes the distribution of U106 back then was pretty much the same as it is now.

I think U106 moved south and west with Germanic speakers relatively recently (beginning in the 3rd century BC).

We may know that some type of U106 is ubiquitous in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence whatsoever that all U106 subclades are ubiquitous in Scandinavia. The Old Norway data showed a near absence of U198 in Norway as well as two out of three samples from Sweden. As I have said repeatedly, absent any study of U106 by subclade, the assumption that all its subclades have an identical history and distribution is not justifiable.....

If the point is whether U106 came out of Scandinavia down into Germany, Poland and points west onto England at a late date..... I tend more towards the idea that U106 occurred and started expanding before hit Scandinavia. Certainly, U106's STR diversity is not greatest in Scandinavia. It may have occurred quite far south of there, i.e. Austria/Switzerland; or even as far east as Belarus or the Ukraine.I make no claim that U106 was part of the Bell Beaker movements. I don't know. They are hard to understand. From what Jean M says, there were more than one type of Beaker folks and the "folks" may not even all have carried beaker pottery around with them.

I'm not sure it matters, but where do we think the Germanic dialects of PIE developed? David Anthony thinks they started east and north of the Carpathians. It is a reasonable possibility that pre-Germanic dialects of IE were spoken in the northern plains of Europe during the time U106 arose and expanded.